Talk:Little Dixie (Oklahoma)

Boundaries of Little Dixie

Little Dixie does not have the same borders as Kiamichi Country. To my knowledge, Little Dixie is the very extreme southeast corner of the state, not the entire southeastern quarter of Oklahoma. For example, the culture of places like McAlester is not southern, whereas Idabel and Hugo are southern. Unfortunently I have not been able to find a reasonable source that more clearly defines the borders of Little Dixie or I would have been pursuing this further. Would someone please find a source or initiate further discussion on this, because if Little Dixie has the same borders as Kiamichi Country (or all of southeastern oklahoma) then this article needs to be merged with Kiamichi Country. Okiefromokla•talk 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for little dixie. Its the very small corner of the state consisting of those three counties only. Not all of southeastern oklahoma. Okiefromokla•talk 05:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of Little Dixie may be at dispute, and different then the boundaries of Kiamichi Country, but it is for sure more then just the three counties that you have listed. The reference you provided says "The Little Dixie area includes Choctaw, McCurtain and Pushmataha counties. The area was named in December, 1994 as a federally-designated empowerment community." and that may be some area that was setup and named in 1994, but Little Dixie existed long before that. The article itself talks about Carl Albert Little Giant from Little Dixie. It should be pointed out that Albert was from near McAlester, (Bugtussle, Oklahoma). I lived in Poteau, Oklahoma for 30 plus years and the locals there always considered they were part of Little Dixie, although at one time they were included with the Green Country tourist district before being added to Kiamichi Country. I think the area is in question and I will attempt to find a better reference. It may be a subset or superset of Kiamichi Country, but I am pretty sure it will be more then just three counties. -- Xltel 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have been trying off and on to find a reference for the boundaries and have not had much luck but there has to be something out there. You're right about the reference I found - its pretty weak, but believe it or not, its the strongest I've found - which is sad. I'm just happy someone else is also taking an intrest in trying to figure this Little Dixie thing out. I'll try looking in newspaper archives. It may be discovered that "little dixie" is a grey area that can't be broken down by county and doesnt have a distinct boundary per-say. I do not believe it is prudent to say that little dixie covers all of southeastern Oklahoma... unless there is a reference to back this up. Most of the sources I find are inconclusive about its boundaries but say it is centered on the towns of Hugo and Idabel, and my impression always was that Little Dixie was only the extreme southeastern part of the state, from Poteau down to the Red River and then hugging the red river area. But that's just me and doesn't represent any conclusive fact that I've found. Thanks for your help in trying to get to the bottom of this. Okiefromokla•talk 21:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several references to back up "Little Dixie" being all of Southeastern Oklahoma and most of the refer to the old 3rd Political District, prior to that redistricting [1] [2] [3] [4] but I have not found a map of that old district yet. There was one reference that indicated it includes the Choctaw Nation, parts of the old Chickasaw and Creek lands. [5] [6] I am pretty sure that district covered more area then Kiamichi Country. I do have pretty conclusive references that McAlester is part of "Little Dixie" [7] [8] [9] and that it covers an area as far the southwest to include Marietta, Oklahoma in Love County by a speech given by Harry Truman there in 1948. [10] As far as McAester is concerned there is even a radio station there owned by "Little Dixie Radio, Inc.". [11] The band in Tishomingo, Oklahoma is called The Pride of Little Dixie. [12] I do think the article is important and I also think it should be updated for current political trends in the area which are pretty close to the conservative trends of the south. The area is close to the size of the tourist area of Kiamichi Country, but larger and the article is important for several reasons including it's historical political impact. I would be strong in saying it should not be merged with the tourist area of Kiamichi Country. I would say the borders should be the area of the old Oklahoma 3rd political district, unless some of the extreme edges can be excluded by specific references. I am also hopeful we can get some comments from others about this so it not just two people making this determination based upon their beliefs. I also have to say I am not the one to pick what references are valid to use, but I can say there are some out there and I would think it would lead most to believe the area covers much more then three counties. --- Xltel 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While these references are a step up from mine, they are only circumstantial. I have come to the conclusion I suspected may be the case: It seems there is no definitive source for the boundaries of Little Dixie, which is expected, as it is a cultural region and much like other cultural regions, it is a gray area. The American South, and the American West for example: some states may or may not be considered part of the south, while Oklahoma and points north may or may not be considered part of the "American West," but sometimes even everything west of the Mississippi River is considered the "west," but other times, only west of the Rocky mountains and east of California is considered the west (see American West and American South). As such, we cannot think to define Little Dixie as simply the former 3rd congressional district. The only real thing I have gathered from the refs you and I both found are that Little Dixie is part of southeastern Oklahoma, either some of it, all of it, or most of it. However, each ref seems to be vague or inconclusive in its description of Little Dixie, and even conflicting with other sources. The only reasonable thing to asertain is there are no definitive boundaries. We are going to have to illustrate this in the article somehow, using refs to cite that McAlester may be considered part of Little Dixie, or Toshimingo may be considered part of little dixie, or that the boundaries of the choctaw nation is one definition of little dixie, or Oklahoma's former 3rd district is another definition, or the area between towns of Hugo and Idabel are another definition, etc. As for the map, I say we either remove it as we can't find a definitive source, or make a map with grey areas getting lighter towards the northwest from the southeastern point of the state to illustrate its gray boundaries. I have photoshop, so I'll try to do this. Okiefromokla•talk 16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments about the area being not well defined and for that matter all of your comments about a cultural region. It also does not make good sense to set the boundaries to the old 3rd district. I also think we should not include a map and leave the boundaries vague with the region described in the article itself. Do any others have comments? -- Xltel 10:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I come late to this, but want to say hurrah! to an entry for Little Dixie. I agree that setting the boundaries as restrictively as they are here is a little too limiting. My family settled in southeastern IT in 1866 -- they and some other families bought land from the Choctaw and Chickasaw (we got ours from the Choctaw, emigrating there from Georgia after being ruined by Sherman's march to the sea. Our part of Little Dixie is way west of the counties included, though. Our land was between Roff and Fittstown in Pontotoc County. However, everybody in my small community who didn't consider themselves primarily Chickasaw considered themselves part of Little Dixie, and considered themselves Southerners Billollib 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused actually. Do you not want me to make a map? Or are you suggesting the article shouldn't specify borders at all? Okiefromokla•talk 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying no map and just describe the general area as being southeast Oklahoma with references to some of the cities in the area and a general verbal description of the area with some of the references mentioned and also say there is no firm boundries. I for sure don't like the idea of an area map with lighter shades of grey. I don't see how we have any references where a decision could be made that one place is light grey, another medium grey and others dark grey. So are you set on having a map of some sort? -- Xltel 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that an arbitrary map would be misleading. I wonder if there is an Oklahoma historian who might have information about a density pattern of post-1865 and pre-1898 settling of Indian Territory. That density map would make a good graphic.Billollib 20:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It seems this page actually somehow got taken off my watchlist so I didn't see any responses to my comment way back on aug 1 and haven't thought to check the page since. But continuing on the conversation, I think it would be nice to have a map but im not set on it. I was thinking something along the lines of this:

This map of the Upland South region isnt a solid color, but fades outwardly, and shows that the upland south doesnt really have set boundaries but includes just an approximate area. For little dixie's map I wouldn't use the color green, it would probably be red to be in line with most other maps. Rather than colording induvidual counties, there would be a fading area like this map, and that area would probably reach over most of southeastern Oklahoma, with it getting progressively darker towards the extreme southeast corner of the state. Okiefromokla•talk 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the idea of a map, at least at this point or in any of the ways it has been proposed so far. I also don't like the way the article says "far" southeast Oklahoma and that the area is a "portion" of southeast Oklahoma. The first reference you used in the article was the only one you personally were able to locate and it discusses three counties that were named a federally-designated empowerment community in 1994 and was called "Little Dixie". But it has no relevance to the "Little Dixie" this article is about, other then it is located in the same area. If this article were about the "federally-designated empowerment community" called "Little Dixie" then the reference would be valid. All the other research and references that have been found and/or used indicate the area covers a very large area that includes all of Southeast Oklahoma and exceeds the boundaries of Kiamichi Country in at least some directions, if not all. I do agree that we have not found anything gives a definite boundary of "Little Dixie", at least as yet. I also don't think that shades of coloring would apply or that they could be used. How would we determine who was a lighter shade and what could be used as a reference to justify that? I will write some text for the article in a sandbox and we can look it over. I would like to get input from others. If an agreement can be made, then we can modify the article text. I am also thinking no map at this point, but I am open to being swayed if we can find a good reference to the actual dimensions of the area. I will post here when I have the sandbox ready to look at. Give me till this weekend. And if there are any others that would like to chime in or help, please do so. -- Xltel 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Feel free to go ahead and make the changes without my approval but I can still look over what you come up with if you like. My recent edit was just made so that we could get rid of the three counties that were on there. I agree that the current revision it isn't specific enough and just basically doesnt do a good job of telling where Little Dixie is, but I just wasn't sure what else to put. Also, about the map, I tried to make one but it just didn't look right because I don't really know what I'm doing with that program, so at least for the time being we can forget about it. Okiefromokla•talk 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, another thought. If were going to just specify little dixie as simply southeast oklahoma, shouldnt we take Kiamichi Country and Little Dixie (Oklahoma) and combine them into a single Southeastern Oklahoma article? (currently, that's a redirect to Kiamichi Country) Okiefromokla•talk 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems much of the information in both articles overlaps anyway. Or, maybe we could keep Little Dixie (Oklahoma) where it is but take out geography, politics, etc, and leave only cultural information. We could move the other stuff (which applies also to kiamichi country) to that article, while Little Dixie is just a description of what little dixie is and why its little dixie culturally, rather than just another article about southeastern Oklahoma. Okiefromokla•talk 05:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say leave both. Little Dixie is about a political and cultural area and Kiamichi Country is about a tourist designated area. They may or may not cover the same physical area, that has not been determined. But I think two separate articles are needed as the articles are about two different things and two different named items. Take a look at the text and references provided at Little Dixie Sandbox and let me know your comments here. Feel free to make changes if you like. Thanks, -- Xltel 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, and I agree that they should be 2 articles. But, I do think we should delete the geography info from the article and move the politics info to Kiamichi Country. I think we should concentrate on making Little Dixie about the cultural aspect, and not an article about southeastern Oklahoma is general. Whereas Kiamichi Country can be about southeastern Oklahoma in genera, with geography, climate, politics, etc. In otherwords, this Little Dixie article could be about only defining little dixie, not a comprehensive article about the land it occupies since it overlaps either a very small or most of southeastern Oklahoma. Okiefromokla•talk 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on deleting the geography, I would also go as far as removing the history prior to when the region was formed. I also agree that the article should be about the cultural aspects and not about SE OK in general, geography, climate.... but the politics is part of what Little Dixie is all about. I would be against moving that. In fact I think the political history of Little Dixie is significant and should be one of the main highlights of the article. For right now my goal was to get some consensus on the description and a size explanation that is valid. -- Xltel 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the history of Little Dixie should most certainly remain. And the current politics info seems good since its tightly connected with the culture of the area. Though any more detailed political info should go into SE Oklahoma, I think. Regarding the size of Little Dixie: the sources we have now serve little more than circumstatial evidenc that is definitive by no stretch of the imagination. Spelling it out source by source as you did in your sandbox may be the best way we can go with this unless there is a magical source somewhere... maybe a historical reference to where in southeastern oklahoma most southerners settled, specifically? That could be pretty definitive. But I wouldn't hold me breath for more people to chime in... it seems we're alone. Okiefromokla•talk 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone. ALL of Oklahoma is southern in culture. This ares is more in line with the deep south. The rest of Oklahoma is Arkansas like southern. The map is accurate. The person above who said McAlester isn't southern doesn't have a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.95.221 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I propose a merge of this article into Kiamichi Country and also a rename of that article to Southeastern Oklahoma. They are obviously attempting to cover the same material. Little Dixie (Oklahoma) should be kept as an article that deals strictly with the term "Little Dixie" and the cultural reasons behind it, rather than the geography, politics, and history of the area, which should stay in Southeastern Oklahoma.

I am essentially proposing to remove the Geography section here and combine History and Politics into Southeastern Oklahoma. The lead would remain. I don't know if anyone is watching this article, but I think this is almost common sense, so if there are no responses in a reasonable time, I'll go ahead and make the move. Okiefromokla ^complaints 20:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't support this proposal. Little Dixie and Kiamichi Country are not coterminous. Little Dixie is a figure of speech about a nebulously defined-but-small part of southeastern Oklahoma.

Furthermore, as you know, Kiamichi Country is one of ODOT's six travel regions. That kitschy campaign endured so long that it obtained cultural relevance.... Indeed, each of these travel regions should have a separate entry, just as Green Country does now. (I hope you don't want to merge Green Country and northeastern Oklahoma, too. If that doesn't make sense—and, in my view, it doesn't—then this proposal doesn't, either.) Kiamichi Country is not simply just Southeastern Oklahoma; it's a marketing device used to promote tourism in southeastern Oklahoma. In other words, the geographic and marketing concepts are separate enough to warrant separate entries. (By the way, I still object to a statement in Kiamichi Country that it contains Lake Eufaula. Lake Eufaula is mostly in McIntosh County, which is in Green Country.) GreenGourd (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case I didn't make this clear, I agree with your reasons for keeping a separate entry for Little Dixie, but I think *similar* reasons justify separate entries for Kiamichi Country and southeastern Oklahoma. GreenGourd (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The problem here is that this article covers the history, politics, and geography of SE Oklahoma, while the scope of Kiamichi Country is the same. There must be only one article that covers these general topics for Southeastern Oklahoma. The most logical action seems to be to transplant all relevant information from this article into the Kiamichi Country article and leave this one to focus on the term "Little Dixie" as it relates to Oklahoma. In other words, to simply transplant the information that overlaps with the scope of Kiamichi Country. The current situation is a guideline violation.

The Green County situation is different than Kiamichi Country because the term "Green Country" is far more common in everyday speech than "Kiamichi County". My proposal that Kiamichi Country be renamed to Southeastern Oklahoma is an attempt to abide by Wikipedia's policy that articles should be titled after the most common name of their subject. That being said, as long as the regions of the state (with the possible exception of Green Country) have articles titled for their most common name, such as Southeastern Oklahoma, I see no reason why we cannot have separate articles about the tourism designations for each region. But, as you say, they must have a different scope. Kiamichi Country, for example, would become an article about the tourism mechanism of the term "Kiamichi Country", and not about southeastern Oklahoma itself. And Southwestern Oklahoma could have a corresponding but separate article called "Great Plains Country", and so on. Okiefromokla ^complaints 01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really disagree much, but there is no real violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Kiamichi Country is not southeastern Oklahoma. It's a marketing device *related to* southeastern Oklahoma. Yes, the two articles should be different; they're about different topics. I cannot imagine how you would defend differential treatment for ODOT's travel regions. In different parts of the state, some are better known than others. Green Country *might* well be the best known overall, but Kiamichi Country is absolutely a familiar term in parts of the state. In my humble opinion, and with much respect to you and the work you do on Oklahoma-related articles, it would be arbitrary and capricious to treat Green Country differently than Kiamichi Country simply because your sense is that it's "more common in everyday speech." GreenGourd (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. We don't really have to agree on the name change right now. But do you agree that Little Dixie and Kiamichi Country shouldn't have the same scope? What do you think about moving all general information about SE Oklahoma information into Kiamichi Country and having Little Dixie being devoted to the idea of Little Dixie, rather than the history, politics, and geography of SE Oklahoma as is currently the case? Okiefromokla ^complaints 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, again. Little Dixie is definitely different from Kiamichi Country. The Little Dixie (Oklahoma) article is problematic because it's so hard to define—just a term, once having more cultural salience, about the greater "Southern-ness" of parts of eastern Oklahoma. It's more of a sociological term than a geographic one.... As for "moving all general information about SE Oklahoma" into Kiamichi Country, I thought we were in general agreement that those are really two separate concepts. In any event, Southeastern Oklahoma already re-directs to Kiamichi Country, so that's probably not what you're proposing. I think you may really be asking whether information *about* southeastern Oklahoma that's now in Little Dixie (Oklahoma) should be moved into Kiamichi Country. I'm certainly ok with *that*, so long as we end up with a different article that captures Little Dixie as a separate concept. GreenGourd (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's exactly what I'm proposing! "I think you may really be asking whether information *about* southeastern Oklahoma that's now in Little Dixie (Oklahoma) should be moved into Kiamichi Country." That's it right there. I just chose to say "merge" because it would be most of the article except the lead. The renaming of "Kiamichi Country" was another issue altogether. Sorry for the confusion! I should have waited until this was over to bring that up. Okiefromokla ^complaints 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone. It is accurate the way it is. It's called little Dixie. Kiamichi Country is a name coined in OKC by hipsters that have no idea or any right to name this region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.95.221 (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Little Dixie (Oklahoma). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Chickasaw Nation

“The former capital of Chickasaw Nation” is incorrect. Tishomingo is still the capital. 2600:6C40:6300:2A91:E511:EB61:F49F:6B52 (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]